 |
| 
Violin for God
Luke, I am your father. --Nooooooooo!!!!!
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 690
| Posted 11/23/2005 7:11 PM (GMT -6) |   | | I was just browsing the threads in the Internet Infidels Discussion Forum and they're discussing whether (in a non-theistic paradigm I assume) there are any arguments FOR free will.
One person brought this up and I'm still trying to understand the whole concept of Occam's Razor. (Alan's at work, so I thought I'd just bring it up here.)
How does this statement make sense? I don't understand... (my blondness is getting to me... aaaah!)
"Occam's razor implies that if a being with freewill is indistinguishable from a being without freewill, then the assumption is that they do not have it."
Does this statement make sense to anyone else?
[As Bill and Ted approach Socrates]: Bill: "Yo Ted, say something profound, dude."
Ted: "Oh, yeah. Right. All we are...is dust in the wind dude."
Bill: ..."Dust".... "Wind" ... "Duuuude".
Socrates: (gasping in awe) "Like sands through the hour glass, so are the days of our lives." | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 11/23/2005 7:43 PM (GMT -6) | |
Violin for God said...I was just browsing the threads in the Internet Infidels Discussion Forum and they're discussing whether (in a non-theistic paradigm I assume) there are any arguments FOR free will.
One person brought this up and I'm still trying to understand the whole concept of Occam's Razor. (Alan's at work, so I thought I'd just bring it up here.)
How does this statement make sense? I don't understand... (my blondness is getting to me... aaaah!)
"Occam's razor implies that if a being with freewill is indistinguishable from a being without freewill, then the assumption is that they do not have it."
Does this statement make sense to anyone else?
Occam's Razor just means, if there are two competing theories, accept the simpler of the two.
From wikipedia:
In its simplest form, Occam's Razor states that one should make no more assumptions than needed. Put into everyday language, it says
- Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate [Latin]
or
- Given two equally predictive theories, choose the simpler.
Atheists use it to disavow religion, reasoning that adding supernatural beings to the equation is making things more complicated than needed.
They're assuming a being with free will is more complicated than a being without free will. Biologically, this seems to be the case.
It makes sense to me but I don't believe it. It appears to me I have free will. I can easily form an idea in my head and execute it. The burden of proof is on them to prove I didn't do this freely.
They (determinists of all stripes) usually say the burden of proof is on us to prove we have free will.
So they're going against appearances; to me, a more tenuous (and complicated) assumption. Hence Occam's Razor, to me, argues against them.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 11/23/2005 7:48 PM (GMT -6) | | |
Here's an example given from wikipedia:
For example, after a storm you notice that a tree has fallen. Based on the evidence of the storm and the fallen tree, a reasonable hypothesis would be that the storm blew down the tree — a hypothesis that requires you to suspend your disbelief very little, as there exist strong logical connections binding what you already know to this solution (seeing and hearing storms tends to indeed indicate the existence of storms; storms are more than capable of felling trees). A rival hypothesis claiming that the tree was knocked over by marauding 200-metre tall space aliens requires several additional assumptions, with various logical weaknesses resulting from inconsistencies with what is already known (concerning the very existence of aliens, their ability and desire to travel interstellar distances, their ability and desire to (non-)intentionally knock down trees and the alien biology that allows them to be 200 metres tall in terrestrial gravity), and is therefore less preferable.
The 'space aliens' is a knock against the supernatural.
Now turn this on the atheists/determinists regarding free will.
I make a decision and execute it. That's my free will. The simplest of the explanations.
I think I make a decision but really don't. I execute it. I'm just acting out OUTSIDE impulses. A more complicated explanation, one right up there with the 'space aliens'. Rejected due to Occam's Razor
Their assumption is that me having free will is more complicated than me not having free will. But they are ignoring their much more complicated outside cause of my decision than my free will. By hiding their complicated occult cause, they think they're making lack of free will the simpler of the explanations.
And I like KnowNothing's answer:
Nonsense. A being with free will IS distiguishable from a being without it. Surely you observe that humans are different from rocks right? In fact Occam's razor insists that free will is reality since all the free willers rely on is observed reality when the determinist relies on a bullshit definition of the entire universe.
 Post Edited (Laika) : 11/23/2005 7:00:02 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 11/23/2005 8:49 PM (GMT -6) | | VFG: How does this statement make sense?
"Occam's razor implies that if a being with freewill is indistinguishable from a being without freewill, then the assumption is that they do not have it."
Alan: Laika has done a good job explaining Occam's Razor and how it applies to the issue of free will. I have just a couple more comments.
First, why not run the argument of the above quote in the other direction? In other words, why not argue that if a being with freewill is indistinguishable from a being without freewill, then the assumption is that they DO have it? Without some reason for thinking that the non-freewill view is in fact simpler as an explanation than the freewill answer, there's no reason to make the first inference rather than the second.
Second, Occam's Razor just says that, all other things being equal, if you are given a choice between two explanatory theories you should go with the simpler one. But the notion of 'simplicitly' can be cashed out in various, nonequivalent ways, so it's sometimes hard to say unambiguously which theory is simpler. For example, is the simpler theory the one that posits (a) fewer entities, or (b) fewer types of entities, or makes (c) fewer independent assumptions, or has (d) greater intuitive plausibility, or is (e) overall better on some combination of the above criteria?
Thus, appeals to Occam's Razor can often be invoked on both sides of a debate. For example, in response to the cosmic fine-tuning version of the design argument, many atheists proposes the "Many-Worlds Hypothesis", which posits a virtually infinite number of universes varying in their physical laws and constants. Theistic proponents of the design argument charge the Many-Worlds Hypothesis with violating Occam's Razor by positing a vast number of unnecessary explainers--why posit so many universes when you can just posit one God? Conversely, atheists frequently contends that the design argument violates Occam's Razor by posit more types of entities than necessary--we already know that universes exist, so why posit an altogether new type of being (God) to explain cosmic fine-tuning?
As you can see, the Razor can be wielded in different ways to obtain different results on the same issues of debate, which means that mere appeals to Occam's Razor should be taken with a grain of salt. Unless those wielding the Razor specify and defend their criteria for judging simplicity, I wouldn't put stock in the results.
Alan
Does this statement make sense to anyone else? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Violin for God
Luke, I am your father. --Nooooooooo!!!!!
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 690
| Posted 11/23/2005 11:29 PM (GMT -6) | | Ah ha, Laika-san!
(Imagine with Chinese accent) Much much thank yoh. Ya ya, make moch sense! I think I see enlightened path!
(Back to regular self, whew!) I was also thinking that having free will would actually be much simpler than no free will. Here's basically what I'm thinkin':
Say a person enjoys shelling peanuts in his free time and does this whenever he can. He has the same circumstances every day. Then one day he decides to shell walnuts instead just for kicks. How would the naturalist or determinist explain that?
How would the naturalist-determinist explain anomalous occurrences? The theistic determinist could say that God must have caused it, but the naturalist really has no response that except saying that it's a complex neural process that goes on, but then it's up to the naturalist to cash-out this complex neural process.
It seems that explaining anomalous occurrences would end up being much more difficult and complex for the naturalist than for the free willer (almost sounds like Free Willy) or the theistic determinist.
However, perhaps the naturalist-determinist would have a simpler explanation for things than the naturalist-free willer because the free willer has to figure out how we got free will in the first place.
Hmmm... I think I'll stop here and just go with what you and Alan wrote. I think I'm making myself more confused. (Aah, the blondness is attacking again! Run away!) 
[As Bill and Ted approach Socrates]:
Bill: "Yo Ted, say something profound, dude."
Ted: "Oh, yeah. Right. All we are...is dust in the wind dude."
Bill: ..."Dust".... "Wind" ... "Duuuude".
Socrates: (gasping in awe) "Like sands through the hour glass, so are the days of our lives." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 11/24/2005 8:45 PM (GMT -6) | |
Alan Rhoda said...
many atheists propose the "Many-Worlds Hypothesis", which posits a virtually infinite number of universes* varying in their physical laws and constants. Theistic proponents of the design argument charge the Many-Worlds Hypothesis with violating Occam's Razor by positing a vast number of unnecessary explainers--why posit so many universes when you can just posit one God?
Does the infinite number of possible worlds of middle knowlege suffer a similar unnecessity?
Or is that a separate issue?
| | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 6:23 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|